No, but since its subjective there's no right or wrong answer, since its just a subjective opinion, so arguing over it is useless
Where as if something is objective there is a right or wrong answer
Was God Wrong...?
- Thread starter Carcano
- Start date
No, but since its subjective there's no right or wrong answer, since its just a subjective opinion, so arguing over it is useless
Where as if something is objective there is a right or wrong answer
Like god(s)?
What?
You should be more specific man I don't understand wtf you're trying to say
You mean the existence of god(s) or what?
yeah you should you know instead of saying "this is bullshit" case closed
Oh then yes thats objective, since it doesn't rely upon subjective opinion, but rather the actual truth, actual factsuperluminal said:
Good. We're getting somewhere.
Now you will please present some objective truths and facts that show that god(s) exist.
I can't, its an untestable hypothesis, you cannot prove/disprove an untestable hypothesis
Just like how you can't prove the many-worlds interpretation is true or just like how in the 1940s no one could prove that quarks existed (because it was an untestable hypothesis)
But you just said that the existence of god was an objective truth, not dependent on subjective opinions. So, which is it? If you can't provide any objective evidence for god(s) (which you just said you could not) then god(s) are based on your subjective opinion. At least the god(s) you seem to believe in.
There. Is that settled? God(s) are a subjective opinion only. Thanks for participating.
Right....so how does this contradict anything I said?
The existence of God is objective, it doesn't matter what you believe in, if its true its true, if its false, its false...
You can't prove/disprove it because its an untestable hypothesis
Where's the contradiction?
The truth is the truth with or WITHOUT evidence....
Ok. You don't know what objective means. That's ok. For something to be objective vs subjective, you have to be able to demonstrate to me conclusive proof or evidence of its existence. If you can't, then it's subjective.
Therefore, god(s) are a subjective opinion only, since there is no supporting conclusive evidence that anyone can examine and test.
That help?
you need to go study logic, critical thinking, and the basics of of arguing some more.
That is a metaphysical statement. If there is no way to ascertain the value of an assertion through evidence, then there is no way to assign truth or falsity to the assertion.
You assert that god(s) exist. I assert that you need to prove it to me. You say there is no way to do so. Therefore, your assertion remains pure subjective speculation.
Hope this helps.
hahaha
thats not what objective means, you should go look it up
Before it was proven that the Earth revolved around the Sun, it was an objective fact, it didn't "become" true or become objective after it was proven
No, my assertion remains unknown since its an untestable hypothesis...you can't gather evidence for an untestable hypothesis by DEFAULT
You seem to be using an argument from ignorance, I guess quarks only existed after they were proven to, before that they never existed, right?
I'm going to explain something to you.
You have a fixation on the metaphysical state of the truth or falsity of things that have not been examined yet, as if truth or falsity were an absolute property of the universe. They are not. Truth and falsity are human concepts and are provisional at best.
They are used to describe our level of confidence in what we think we know. An objective truth is one that anyone can examine and is based on evidence. If I claim that the sun revolves around the earth, this is a statement of objective provisional truth. It appears obvious at first glance. But it can be examined and teste and refined.
Your statements regarding god(s) cannot and therefore remain subjective (personal) opinions only.
Right, and it perfectly matches the exact way I used the word objective
Thanks for the re-confirmation
Now Let me explain something to you
The truth doesn't mean "human confidence in something"
The truth means the ways things actually are, the way reality really is, the true nature of things
Before it was proven that the Earth revolved around the Sun it was the truth, it did not become the truth after it was proven
You seem to be suffering from the same illogical fallacies most atheists have
Exactly. It therefore remains in the realm of opinion since it cannot be examined objectively.
That is absurd. Whether things exist that we have no knowledge of is completely irrelevant. Would you start a discussion of P+2 particle pairs? Would you assert that they exist? Do they? Pointless, right?
Before you knew of quarks did you argue for their existence? If not, why not?
no it doesn't